[OT - US/Canada] E-85

"William Graham" wrote in
:

Now there's an idea! - The two products could be made in the same factory
by
the same corporation, and from the same crop! One building will distill the
alcohol, and the other will make the diesel fuel...........



They could make corn meal too.

Then all you need is a good fishing lake and have some great Friday night
parties.

Someone needs to tell Willie Nelson about this, You could hide some
sensimilla between the corn rows, I know Willie would get on board for that.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

"Joe Bleaux" wrote in message Try 25-30% less mileage
(the Energy Dept. estimates 40% less mileage).
Recent reports cite ethanol prices being more expensive than gasoline,
but even if ethanol were selling for a cheaper price than gas it's
still
more expensive when you figure in the tremendous drop in fuel
efficiency.

Of course. There are few liquids that contain as much energy per pound
than
gasoline. - That isn't the point. The point is we are running out of
gasoline. It will have really lousy efficiency when we don't have any
more
of it. This will happen by 2050. Then what do you suggest we do?

We were going to be out of gas by *now* according to what people were
saying when I was in college. Doesn't seem to have happened -- in
fact prices have hardly climbed (adjusted for inflation).

Nevertheless, you must know that it can't last forever. At some point we
will run out of it. As a matter of fact, when the price of using gasoline
for transportation becomes more expensive per mile traveled than some other
fuel, that's the point when we are, "out of it", for all practical
purposes. And somewhere south of $100 a barrel, that will become the case. I
believe that will happen during the next 10 years, so if I were shopping for
a new car today, I would be looking for one that can burn ethanol, or a
diesel that can burn salad oil.

"Rusty Shakleford" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in
:

Now there's an idea! - The two products could be made in the same factory
by
the same corporation, and from the same crop! One building will distill
the
alcohol, and the other will make the diesel fuel...........



They could make corn meal too.

Then all you need is a good fishing lake and have some great Friday night
parties.

Someone needs to tell Willie Nelson about this, You could hide some
sensimilla between the corn rows, I know Willie would get on board for
that.

From what I know of Willie, he's already got stock in the ethanol
factory......

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
1...
Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

Unlike gasoline ethanol is renewable. After three cycles
you're at par, on the 4th cycle you're ahead of whatever
oil can ever deliver. The ratio is 1:1.38 (BTW).

The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is
mostly fueled (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy
costs; E-85 does the opposite, something that is
definitely not being told to the public. As well, it's
seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further
raising costs.

Nope: Ford, GM and Chrysler sell these at the same price
as the non FFV vehicles. (In the beginning there was as
much as $2000 difference; now most of the them are the
same price at buy time). This was also mentioned on 60
minutes last night and on the doe site you can find which
vehicles carry a premium and which do not. Most do not.

Over 6 M vehicles delivered in the US so far from Ford, GM
and Chrysler.

While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil
imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and
E-85 fails in the cost department.

Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production
increased, economies of scale will continue to reduce the
cost.

Yes, if we can see light at the end of the tunnel this soon
in the process, think what it will be like when every
filling station in the land has one pump that pumps it.
There is something very satisfying about the idea that you
can actually grow fuel for your car. That the growing fuel
crop will eat up the CO2 that it will eventually generate
when burned in your engine...

Yes, I read it all.

What I think is hilarious about corn gas is that it is
negatively efficient, meaning it takes more energy to produce
it than is saved. Adding to the negative efficiency is that
any internal combustion engine running on ethanol will get
less MPG than the equivalent car on gas and will perform less
well. Reason? There are less heat BTUs in a gallon of ethanol
than a gallon of gas. Cars run on heat energy from whatever
fuel they burn. Another silly-ass example of negative
efficiency is an all-electric car - these "burn" "clean"
energy which is "free" from electrical powerplants, right?
Well, besides nuclear and coal, both of which have problems
and are hardly "free", the rest burn either oil or natural gas
- or "natural gas" formed from oil.

Enjoy the ride, it is indeed a first-class scam, as are hybrid
cars which /never/ break even. Don't believe me? Google for
it. At 15,000 miles per year, gas has to exceed $5/gal for a
Toyota Prius to break even in 6 years. And, that does not
include the cost of a battery replacement after 4 years, but
does include the tax breaks. If you now assume gas at the
current $3/gal (about), this same Prius would need to be
driven 35,000 miles/year to break-even in the same 6 years.

Mindless insanity.

To "fix" the "obscene" oil company profits, change the way
CAFE is defined and tested. Then, stop using the doubly
efficient modern cars to move twice as far from work and stop
driving trucks that weight 7,500 pounds.

If one looks at the overall usage of gasoline over the past 30
years, it has actually gone up, except in years where some
external force has messed things up. And, miles driven have
gone up even faster, as have average vehicle weights.

You are missing something. If you have a widget factory, you have to
manufacturer the widgets that you sell. Now, lets say that when you bought
the factory, there was a warehouse full of widgets that the former owner had
made, but stockpiled without selling. As long as you are selling those from
the warehouse, you will be making a healthy profit, and you won't have a
care in the world. but, sooner or later, your warehouse stock will be
depleted. At that point, you will have to make your widgets, and if you
can't do that competitively, you will go out of business.
This is why gasoline is so, "efficient". It already exists in the
warehouse. There is no way you can compete with that. Making ethanol won't
do it, because you have to MAKE the ethanol. But at least you CAN make
ethanol. When the warehouse full of crude oil dries up, you will have a hell
of a time making gasoline, and, at that point, the ethanol business will
look pretty good.

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:01:56 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution.

Which fumes? The corn grown absorbs more CO2 than ethanol generates.

Hydrocarbon fumes, from the gas.
For somereason (I don't know the chemistry), E-85 releases more gas
fumes than straight gas.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

But this is a minor problem....You will just have to vent your gas tank
differently than it is with gasoline....Think of the problem you would have
if you had to carry liquid hydrogen around with you. Now there's a real tank
ventilation problem...:^)

Today John McWilliams attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

All Things Mopar wrote:

What I think is hilarious about corn gas is that it is
negatively efficient, meaning it takes more energy to
produce it than is saved.

Well,have you some number to demonstrate this?

"Google" (and the EPA) are your best friends"

....does include the tax breaks. If you now assume gas at
the current $3/gal (about), this same Prius would need to
be driven 35,000 miles/year to break-even in the same 6
years.

Mindless insanity.

On grounds of pure economics, yes. But some folks like to
think they're helping get away from big oil, whether they
are or not. Others do it for the environment, whether
there's a net benefit or not, or merely transferred from
one place to another. Others may feel they are somehow
"sticking it to the man", etc, etc. I am not among these
fine people; just showing that not all uneconomic decisions
are insane.

On /any/ grounds! I suppose you're now going to tell me that
it is important to be green, particularly when green stuff
itself contributes to air pollution?

That is to laugh - more.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"My enemy's enemy is my friend, and my enemy's friend is my
enemy" - Middle East Maxim

Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

You are missing something.

Nope.

If you have a widget factory,
you have to manufacturer the widgets that you sell. Now,
lets say that when you bought the factory, there was a
warehouse full of widgets that the former owner had made,
but stockpiled without selling. As long as you are selling
those from the warehouse, you will be making a healthy
profit, and you won't have a care in the world. but, sooner
or later, your warehouse stock will be depleted. At that
point, you will have to make your widgets, and if you can't
do that competitively, you will go out of business.
This is why gasoline is so, "efficient". It already
exists in the
warehouse. There is no way you can compete with that.
Making ethanol won't do it, because you have to MAKE the
ethanol. But at least you CAN make ethanol. When the
warehouse full of crude oil dries up, you will have a hell
of a time making gasoline, and, at that point, the ethanol
business will look pretty good.

I am not advocating the use of ever more oil that is purchased
from lunatic countries, just pointing out that E-85 costs more
in dollars, polution, and greenhouse emissions than it saves,
no matter how many times farmers sow corn. About the only
thing that makes /less/ sense is to pay the same farmer's
/not/ to grow corn in order to prop up the price!

But, the real key to the absurdity of your "defense" in in
your own words, one doesn't find ethanol in the ground, one
"makes" it, and making things costs resouces, albeit not the
same ones. But, if the ethanol factories are burning fossil
fuels, using power from nuclear powerplants, or even dirty
coal-powered plants, aren't they themselves spewing polution?
Yes.

E-85 is a booming business being foisted on a gullible public
by a president who thinks that $150M is a significant impact
on alternative energy, when the real number is closer to $15-
20 /billion/.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"My enemy's enemy is my friend, and my enemy's friend is my
enemy" - Middle East Maxim

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
1...
Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

You are missing something.

Nope.

If you have a widget factory,
you have to manufacturer the widgets that you sell. Now,
lets say that when you bought the factory, there was a
warehouse full of widgets that the former owner had made,
but stockpiled without selling. As long as you are selling
those from the warehouse, you will be making a healthy
profit, and you won't have a care in the world. but, sooner
or later, your warehouse stock will be depleted. At that
point, you will have to make your widgets, and if you can't
do that competitively, you will go out of business.
This is why gasoline is so, "efficient". It already
exists in the
warehouse. There is no way you can compete with that.
Making ethanol won't do it, because you have to MAKE the
ethanol. But at least you CAN make ethanol. When the
warehouse full of crude oil dries up, you will have a hell
of a time making gasoline, and, at that point, the ethanol
business will look pretty good.

I am not advocating the use of ever more oil that is purchased
from lunatic countries, just pointing out that E-85 costs more
in dollars, polution, and greenhouse emissions than it saves,
no matter how many times farmers sow corn. About the only
thing that makes /less/ sense is to pay the same farmer's
/not/ to grow corn in order to prop up the price!

But, the real key to the absurdity of your "defense" in in
your own words, one doesn't find ethanol in the ground, one
"makes" it, and making things costs resouces, albeit not the
same ones. But, if the ethanol factories are burning fossil
fuels, using power from nuclear powerplants, or even dirty
coal-powered plants, aren't they themselves spewing polution?
Yes.

E-85 is a booming business being foisted on a gullible public
by a president who thinks that $150M is a significant impact
on alternative energy, when the real number is closer to $15-
20 /billion/.

But there is a difference between the energy supplied to a stationary
factory, and that supplied to a moving vehicle. Sure, you are going to have
to supply your ethanol factory with power to make the ethanol. It will
require more power to make it than you will get back out of it when you burn
it in your automobile engine. You may have to use coal, or nuclear power to
get the energy you need to make the ethanol. - I don't know anyone who
denies that. There is no way you can get something for nothing, unless you
have a warehouse full of reserves. With crude oil and gasoline, that's just
what you do have. A warehouse full of the raw materials you need to make
your gasoline. Once those have run out, then you've got a problem. You have
to come up with the next cheapest way of making a transportable fuel that
will drive your moving vehicles. You can build electric vehicles, and run
them on either batteries, or copper buried in the roads. You can build steam
powered vehicles, and run them on burning coal. Or you can grow corn and
make ethanol, which will burn in most of the automobile engines being
produced today, even as we speak. - Of these three possibilities, I think
ethanol is the best hope for the near future. Eventually, I think the
electric car, running on power delivered to it via copper in the roads will
be the better, albeit long term solution.

Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

But there is a difference between the energy supplied to a
stationary factory, and that supplied to a moving vehicle.
Sure, you are going to have to supply your ethanol factory
with power to make the ethanol. It will require more power
to make it than you will get back out of it when you burn
it in your automobile engine. You may have to use coal, or
nuclear power to get the energy you need to make the
ethanol. - I don't know anyone who denies that. There is no
way you can get something for nothing, unless you have a
warehouse full of reserves. With crude oil and gasoline,
that's just what you do have. A warehouse full of the raw
materials you need to make your gasoline. Once those have
run out, then you've got a problem. You have to come up
with the next cheapest way of making a transportable fuel
that will drive your moving vehicles. You can build
electric vehicles, and run them on either batteries, or
copper buried in the roads. You can build steam powered
vehicles, and run them on burning coal. Or you can grow
corn and make ethanol, which will burn in most of the
automobile engines being produced today, even as we speak.
- Of these three possibilities, I think ethanol is the best
hope for the near future. Eventually, I think the electric
car, running on power delivered to it via copper in the
roads will be the better, albeit long term solution.

I'm done, here. No matter how anyone spins it, the object is
to use less fossil fuel /anything/ but /without/ any negative
side-effects.

If all we wanted to do was get rid of OPEC, we could find
enough oil for at least you and I within the United States
alone. And, if we're not bothered by a Chernobyl problem,
well, there's nuclear.

But, if you are serious about this stuff, here's one for you:
as little as 250 square miles of today's production solar
cells would provide all of the lower 49 states with electrical
power. Where would we put them? I dunno, in my middle of
Arizona or New Mexico or the Mojave Desert?

Spin that!

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"My enemy's enemy is my friend, and my enemy's friend is my
enemy" - Middle East Maxim

Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

But this is a minor problem....You will just have to vent
your gas tank differently than it is with gasoline....Think
of the problem you would have if you had to carry liquid
hydrogen around with you. Now there's a real tank
ventilation problem...:^)

Hydrogen is incredibly clean, when burned in an engine, it emits
only water pure enough to drink, literally. But, it has to be
kept at near Absolute Zero to stay a liquid. If it doesn't for
any reason, and there is a minor contusion, like a rear-end
collision, it is 1937 all over again - or, as Yogi Berra used to
say "it's deja vu all over again".

("so, what happened in 1937 that ended the idea of hydrogen for
the last 70 years," he asks?)
--
ATM, aka Jerry

"My enemy's enemy is my friend, and my enemy's friend is my
enemy" - Middle East Maxim